Wow! That movie was EXACTLY like the book!

[binkleywalker]

The Running Man.

They both had a guy being pursued. Everything else was different.

So I guess that wouldn't be a good example.

As for Shawshank, it's one of my favorite books. There were some big differences, and in some cases, the movie was even better than the book.

And when Red came upon the oak tree and the camera panned around him so we could see it- man they nailed it.

Brian

 

[cboath]

Everything in Harry Potter 1 was out of the book. The only thing that makes it not dead on is that stuff was cut. Most, though, is found in the deleted scenes. The 'Ultimate' version on BR is closest, but not all scenes were added.

For a 350 page book, it was still a 2.5 hour movie. Bang for Bang would have made it about 3 and they were paranoid no one would go if got too long.

 

[Funky]

Sin City was very close.

Books with pictures don't count. :lol

 

[PHArchivist]

If you can get over a short red headed Irishman being played by a tall black man it surely was :lol

For the record I think it was also very true to the book

They comment on that somewhere in the special features. The filmmakers acknowldege it in one way or another. Was it in Freeman's actual on-screen dialogue...?

 

[Flecktarn92]

Books with pictures don't count. :lol

Well there goes Watchmen. That movie was almost exact with the exception of the tentacle monster being replaced by nuclear explosions.

 

[0neiros]

Fight Club also was very close to the book...right up to the end. Oh well. But since this thread is looking for EXACT, I won't submit that one for consideration :lol

No, you WON'T Submit it. Why? Because...What's the first ******* rule of Fight Club?

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

How many times have we heard, "Eh, it was alright but I liked the book better."? Sometimes (though scarce) the movie is even better than the book.
How many films have you seen that was EXACTLY like the book? The characters and sets were just as you imagined them and the plot or ending was just as written?
For me only one comes to mind.
1984.
Unfortnately it just doesn't translate well to film so it sucked but by god, I remember the first time I saw it and I'd felt as I've already seen it a few times!
What other movies out there meet this criteria?

1984 is good candidate, yes. But it sucked? Don't remember that!

 

[benhs1898]

Well there goes Watchmen. That movie was almost exact with the exception of the tentacle monster being replaced by nuclear explosions.

No. Watchmen was a stinker.

 

[firesprite]

In all honesty, I can't remember a single example where I walked away from a movie thinking that everything was spot-on from the book. That's not to say that I haven't enjoyed some movie adaptations, but I've come to accept in my life that there's no such thing as a 'perfect' adaptation in my mind.

 

[sebastian]

Treasure island with the late great Chuck Heston.

 

[cayman shen]

No, you WON'T Submit it. Why? Because...What's the first ******* rule of Fight Club?

Gah, stupid! :facepalm stupid! :facepalm

 

[ShadowX81]

"The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo" (american version) was pretty much exactly how I imagined it while reading.

 

[Coz]

The Ipcress File - tho it leaves a fair bit out, it certainly retains the feel of the novel.

+1 for The Maltese Falcon!

 

[Mr_Creepy]

Treasure island with the late great Chuck Heston.

QFT :thumbsup


I'd also have to agree with 1984.

 

[Robert412]

High fidelity was pretty damn close. Except for the setting and they cut one minor character...

 

[Contec]

Lord of the rings movies........maybe

 

[Funky]

High fidelity was pretty damn close. Except for the setting and they cut one minor character...

Are some of you folks not getting the point of this thread? The whole point is a movie that is EXACTLY like the book. Making comments like, "Except for the part where..." makes it a movie that doesn't belong in the thread. If it's really close it doesn't count. "The only thing they changed was..." is also not a contender.
We're looking for an exact match, people.

 

[Contec]

Are some of you folks not getting the point of this thread? The whole point is a movie that is EXACTLY like the book. Making comments like, "Except for the part where..." makes it a movie that doesn't belong in the thread. If it's really close it doesn't count. "The only thing they changed was..." is also not a contender.
We're looking for an exact match, people.

It's pretty hard to get an exact match...We are competing against everyone else's imagination.. I have a picture in my head how i interpret a character and when i see the movie it changes and i am not (maybe) able to get back to how i "saw" the character in the first place.
A couple examples:

Snape from Harry Potter, I read the first book before the movie was made and then when i saw it Alan Rickman became and IS snape from now on.

Dirk Pitt from Sahara, Loved the movie, I saw the movie before ever knowing anything about Clive Cusslers books and when i read the Sahara book i fell in love with that and thinks the movie sucks. But in my mind Matthew McConaughey is forever Dirk pitt and William H. Macy is Sandecker and i forgot who ever played Al Giordino

 

[cayman shen]

High fidelity was pretty damn close. Except for the setting and they cut one minor character...

No it wasn't! I teach the book so I've read it about 40 times, and I can tell you besides changing half the names and the country, they eliminate or drastically alter several significant plot and character points, and generally only cover about 75% of what happens in the book. The filmmakers gamely try to capture the feel with Cusack's narration, and they do an ok job, but it's a FAR cry from exactly like the book.

Contec, LOTR...not even close.

 

[eaviii]

Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park

Dead on.